search_parking

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source domain and geographic scope, but says nothing about result format, pagination, sorting, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted text and the key scope is front-loaded. It is concise but slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter search tool with a decent schema and annotations, the description covers the core resource and geography. It still leaves usage decisions and result behavior implicit, which matters when three sibling tools could be candidates.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%: city, county, and max_price are documented, and only limit lacks a schema description. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating that city is a Romanian locality, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (parking spots and garages for rent) and a specific geographic scope (Romanian locality, storia.ro). It is clearly narrower than the sibling search_rentals, though it omits an explicit verb and does not directly address the other siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of search_rentals, get_listing_details, or find_locality. The only implicit usage signal is the Romanian locality requirement, which does not help an agent choose between siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.